The new Minister of Maori Development Te Ururoa Flavell is calling for a review of the justice system as young Maori become increasingly over represented in youth crime statistics.

Fewer young offenders are fronting the judge but young Maori are making up more of those who do pass through the justice system.

Latest Ministry of Justice figures show the number of children and young people charged in Youth Court is the lowest in 20 years. However, as the number drops, the figures show the proportion of young Maori compared with non-Maori is rising.

Six years ago, Maori represented 48 per cent of youths facing charges in the Youth Court. The latest figures reveal that has jumped to 57 per cent.

While the Government lauds the decrease in youth crime, Flavell, who is also co-leader of the Maori Party, said the New Zealand justice system continued to be stacked against young Maori.

It is important to note that while the proportion has increased, the numbers charged has decreased significantly – just not as much as non-Maori.

In the last six years there has been a 46% reduction in the number of young Maori who have been charged in court. That’s a great result. The reduction for young non-Maori has been 63% which is even larger. But if both of them are heading in the right direction, I don’t think it is a problem if one is reducing faster than the other. It would be different if both were increasing.

The demolition worker who choked a Dunedin man to death in a bar toilet was a “parasite” who showed no remorse in court yesterday, a grieving uncle says.

Stephen Anthony Fernyhough, 26, snapped at the victim’s supporters as he was sentenced in the High Court at Dunedin to five years in prison for the manslaughter of Ryan Court, 35, in the Craft Bar on April 27.

Details of Mr Court’s death prompted gasps and several outbursts from a packed and tense public gallery, with Fernyhough, flanked by two guards, responding “f…wits”.

“Shut up, you weren’t there.”

Earlier, the court heard how Fernyhough, who had 76 previous convictions over a nine-year period, used a choker hold on Mr Court for between 20 and 40 seconds, following a disagreement in the men’s toilet.

“Don’t mess with the wee man,” Fernyhough said as he left the unconscious man and fled the scene with his associates.

If three strikes was in earlier, and two of his 76 previous convictions were strike offences, he’d be in for 20 years, not potentially out in two years

A gang member with an extensive history of violence has avoided a sentence of preventive detention for the second time.

Robert Winterburn, 47, has spent most of his adult life in jail, with convictions for manslaughter and attempted murder.

When he appeared before Justice Potter in 1997, she warned him that if he ever appeared in court again there would be no option but a sentence of preventive detention.

But when the Waipukurau Mongrel Mob member appeared for sentencing on his latest raft of offences before Justice Joe Williams in the High Court at Napier yesterday, he was instead jailed for 11 years and four months, with a non-parole period of five years and four months.

The offences included rape and threatening to kill, after he drove his girlfriend to Pukehou cemetery, near Waipawa, last year, telling her she was “never going home again”. He forced her to undress because he thought she was wearing a police bug, and raped her.

If three strikes had been in place previously he would have got a life sentence with no parole for the manslaughter in 1997. As well as the manslaughter he also stabbed another prisoner five times. I doubt he will ever not be a danger to the community and he should have got preventive detention. Three strikes means that on your third serious violent or sexual offence you get the maximum sentence without parole.

The final of my series on issues that I think matter to New Zealanders. The other four have been the economy, health, education and welfare.

The youth crime rate has declined 36% since 2010. This is not prosecutions – but recorded offences. This is important as if you get into crime as a youth, you often stay there.

Burglaries are traumatic for those who have had their homes invaded. The rate was static under Labour and has fallen 10.4% since 2008.

Robberies are even more traumatic for victims. The rate has fallen 26.4% since 2008.

Violent crimes such as assaults are some of the worst crimes. They are also the most likely to be reported. The violent crime rate climbed from 2004 to 2009, and has declined since. It is now 15.9% lower than in 2008.

There are relatively few homicides, so in any one year the numbers may change a fair bit. But over the last four years there were 331 homicides, compared to 394 from 2005 to 2008. That is a reasonable drop.

And the reduced crime rates are starting to show in the prison population, which has been declining since 2011. There are now 235 fewer prisoners.

The three strikes law (which Labour and Greens want to repeal) has been a stunning success to date. While 3,721 offenders have notched up a first strike, only 29 have gone on to do a second strike (by end of 2013) and so far there have been no third strikes. The certainty of no parole and long prison sentences for 2nd and 3rd strikes has a deterrent effect.

UPDATE: As of August 2014 it is 4,585 first strikes, 44 2nd strikes and no third strikes.

And perhaps the most important stat of all. The reoffending rate has fallen from 32.3% to 26.3%. A focus on rehabilitation is working.

News had also just broken that the criminal Arthur Taylor was fighting for prisoners’ rights to vote in the High Court. …

… here is a man who has broken the law 150 times appealing to the law for the opportunity to choose the lawmakers. It’s like a comedy. Why on earth does he care who makes laws? If his past is anything to go by he won’t be a huge fan of keeping the laws his chosen politicians make anyway.

That, really, is the core problem he has, poor bloke. An argument about rights always sounds so soulless when one refuses to uphold the responsibilities that go with them. Arthur wants cake when he has already eaten it.

The very simply way for him to have the right to vote would be to stay out of jail.

Bravo.

No-one would get in the way of his “fundamental freedoms”, by virtue of the fact he wasn’t getting in the way of theirs. After all, that is what committing a crime boils down to; stealing rights from our fellow citizens. We steal their right to life when we murder, we steal their right to own property when we take things not lawfully ours, we steal their right to the truth when we commit fraud. Having stolen the rights of his fellow citizens, Arthur wants more. That’s just greedy.

Labour and Greens are vowing to restore the right to vote for some, possibly all, prisoners.

ACT says shopkeepers should be free to keep guns under their counter, but National leader John Key has dismissed the policy as “dangerous.”

Leader Jamie Whyte said today his party would strengthen the law for self-defence and ensure it is not illegal for a dairy owner to keep a weapon on the premises.

However, Key immediately ruled out implementing the policy, should both parties get back into government.“If ACT thinks the solution is to give a shopkeeper a shot gun, that could end very very badly,” Key told reporters in Whangarei.

When I go into a dairy, I feel safer if there isn’t an unsecured loaded firearm sitting below the counter, thank you..

All public prisons in New Zealand will become full working prisons by 2017, and ex-prisoners will receive post-release drug addiction treatment if National is returned to government, says Corrections Spokesperson Anne Tolley.

Excellent. A great idea.

“By expanding the working prisons model from three to 16 prisons, every eligible prisoner will have a structured 40 hour-a-week timetable to include work experience, skills training and education, alongside drug and alcohol treatment and other rehabilitation programmes. This will give them the skills they need to live a crime-free life outside prison.

“The vast majority of prisoners don’t want to be sitting around in their cells doing nothing. The working prisons model gives them the opportunity to learn good habits and take responsibility for their lives. And after a decent day’s work they are also more manageable for prison staff.”

The working prisons expansion will not require additional funding, and can be established through reprioritisation of resources.

Again a great move, but surprised that so few prisons up until now have been working prisons. Good to see they are doing it with no extra funding needed.

ACT and the Conservatives are making excellent criminal justice policy announcements. If both are in Parliament we might see an end to the cosy major party consensus that has fostered our high rates of serious violent and youth crime.

Garth McVicar’s announcement on parole is more straightforward than I had expected. Most criminals come up for parole at one third of their Judge-given sentence. Garth says:

“The Conservative Party will overhaul the parole system so that a Judge given sentence means what it says, 9 years will mean 9 years. Life will mean Life. The only function of the parole board will be to apply release conditions and ensure they are enforced”

So how would no parole work?

It seems that they would introduce the US Federal system introduced after 1996, when Bill Clinton reached across party lines and took the Republicans policy and ended federal parole. Instead, there is a period of mandatory supervision at the end of most sentences.

Great! There is no evidence that parole works any better to reduce reoffending than supervision at the end of the judge-given sentence.

I’d be interested to see data on this.

People worry that prison populations will explode. That has not been the inevitable experience elsewhere after parole has been cut back. Prison musters would likely drop after an initial rise while offenders worked out that a new sheriff had come to town.

Some attribute the long drop in crime rates in the US, for example, at least partially to the increased deterrence of sentencing certainty. There is a good research consensus that severity of sentencing has much less deterrent power than speed and certainty of detection, conviction and punishment. Ending criminal expectation of parole dramatically increases certainty, and judges could afford to reduce sentence lengths.

It would be logical to reduce a sentence length to take account of no parole.

But there is another reason why prison musters will not escalate nearly as much as some would theorise. Because much of the serious crime is committed by a relatively small population of career criminals, the change would merely cancel for those serious offenders, who accumulate records of hundreds of crimes, their brief parole excursions from prison to add to their tally. Instead they stay much longer where they cannot prey on fresh victims.

I think this is right. A small core of criminals commit a huge amount of the crimes.

It’s great to see so few second strikes, and that so far there have been no third strikes.

They have a profile of the 24 2nd strikers:

100% have numerous prior convictions as adults. And these are not for minor offences. They include burglary, male assaults female, possession of offensive weapons, robbery, aggravated robbery, indecent assault, theft and many others.

46% have prior convictions for ‘strike’ offences before Three Strikes taking effect on 1 June 2010. Because Three Strikes was not implemented ‘retrospectively’ these prior offences do not count as ‘strikes’ against their record.

The average age of second strikers is just under 26 years, and all but one are men. The youngest second striker is 19 years old, and the oldest 45 years old, at the time of second strike sentence.

67% received a sentence of imprisonment for their first strike offence/s. Of those imprisoned, the average term was 14% of the maximum available. The average term imposed was 20 months.

38% of first strikers committed their first strike offence while on bail, parole or while still subject to sentence.

67% of second strikers committed their second strike offence while on bail, parole or while still subject to sentence.

92% received a sentence of imprisonment for their second strike offence/s. Of those imprisoned for their second strike offence/s, the average term was 24% of the maximum available. The average term imposed was 35 months. The term imposed is served without parole or early release under the three strikes law.

67% committed their second strike offence while on bail, parole or while still subject to sentence.

The fact that 38% of second strikers committed their first strike whole on bail or parole is telling.

Labour voted against the three strikes legislation, and off memory were committed to abolishing it in 2011. Does anyone know if this is still their policy? They are saying nothing publicly, which makes me suspect it it – but they know it will be unpopular, so keep quiet on it.

The Herald reviews law & order policies, yet doesn’t mention the three strikes law once. Will a change of Government mean repeat serious violent and sexual offenders continue to get parole?

Once the review was completed, Labour would consider several changes which improved the court experience for sexual assault victims. It would look at changing cross-examination rules to make sure victims were not “put on trial”. Specialist courts could be established which trained judges, lawyers and staff in the dynamics of sexual violence and dealing with victims. And the definition of consent could be amended so the burden of proof was shifted from the Crown to the accused. This provoked some public discomfort as critics felt it could impinge on a person’s right to be presumed innocent.

Yep under Labour you will be presumed to be a rapist, ad will have to prove consent, if there is no dispute that sex occurred.

The Minister of Police and Corrections, Anne Tolley, has launched a ‘whole government plan on tackling gangs’.

Great, we need one and much of what is being proposed is good. She should be congratulated. What we don’t need is to over-inflate the problem. Unfortunately, in an election year (of course), this is what has occurred.

The Minister says there are 4000 known gang members in New Zealand. She says that so far this year they are responsible* for 34 per cent of class A & B drug offences; 36 percent of kidnapping and abduction offences; 25 per cent of aggravated robbery/robbery offences; 26 per cent of grievous assault offences; and consequently 28 per cent of the prison population is gang members. Sounds bad, right? If we believe what we are told, gang members make up just 0.1 per cent of the population yet they are responsible for between a quarter and more than a third of these serious crimes.

Unfortunately, I suspect it’s bollocks. More than that I’ll bet on it.

I will eat a suitcase full of carrots in front of the fine Sociology Department at the University of Canterbury if this data are correct. I’ll ask the Minister to do the same if I’m right.

Let’s look at what we can prove, because inconveniently she has used specific offences that don’t match with published data. Nevertheless, we are told that 28 per cent of the prison population are gang members. If we take the current prison population as 8500 that means 2380 of known gang members are currently behind bars. Whoa, that means 1620 free gang members are creating all of the carnage that the Minister has cited today.

Not only are the numbers wrong, they are widely inaccurate. Crazy inaccurate. If they’re not I’ll eat carrots.

Gilbert is wrong when he says the specific offences don’t match published data. As an academic, I am surprised he has not discovered the website run by Stats NZ.

He seems to disbelieve that somewhere between 1,620 and 4,000 gang members (some of those in jail will have been out during the year) could commit:

25% of aggravated robberies and robberies

36% of kidnapping and abductions

26% of grievous assaults

34% of class A and B drug offences

So what do the numbers tell us.

Aggravated Robberies and Robberies

There were 2,032 robberies (both types) last year. 25% would be 508. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Kidnappings and Abductions

There were 198 kidnappings and abductions last year. 36% would be 71. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Grievous Assaults

If you add up the 17 assault categories that mention GBH, there were 500 offences last year. 26% would be 130. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Class A and B drug offences

There were 16,070 illicit drug offences in 2013. They are broken up into specific drugs and it would take a long time to do an exact count. But a previous Stats report is that less than 10% are Class A and B. So a fair assumption is 1,607 Class A and B drug offences last year. 34% would be 546. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

So on the face of it, the statistics used by the Minister do not seem incredulous.

UPDATE: I have been sent the actual stats the Minister was relying on, which are for the first quarter of 2014. They are:

Class A/B drug offences total 218 out of 649

Kidnapping and abduction 16 out of 44

Aggravated robbery/robbery 72 out of 284

Grievous assault 130 out of 506

I look forward to the Herald covering the Jarrod Gilbert eating his carrots.

A couple of hours trapped in grime ended Porou Wrathall’s career in crime.

Police found the skinny teenager stuck in a fatty pipe at Mr Fish and Chips shop in Langdons Rd, Papanui, about 2.30am on June 17, after they were alerted by neighbours who heard Wrathall’s cry for help.

Yesterday an embarrassed but relieved Wrathall, 18 and a first offender, told The Press the offence had occurred during a drunken moment and was “the start and end” of his criminal career.

He had just appeared in the Christchurch District Court, where his conviction for burglary was penalised with an order he come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months.

In some ways, he had already paid dearly for his stupidity. He was stuck in the greasy fish and chip shop extractor vent for several hours. A steel support was jammed between his buttocks, he was caked in fat and he was cold and sore. He then spent four days in hospital due to hypothermia and kidney problems caused by the confinement.

Heh, now that is karma. I do hope he has recovered though and learnt a lesson.

Share this:

The prison system has achieved little in lowering the rate of Maori offending and a century of appalling Maori crime statistics shows no sign of abating, according to an iwi justice advocate.

That is because generally the role of the prison system is to protect the community, not lower offending. Lowering offending is important, but that involves drug and alcohol counselling, education, rehabilitation programmes and the like. Some of that can be done through prisons, but again the primary role of prisons is to keep the community safe.

A joint police and iwi justice programme in Wellington that aims to reduce Maori crime statistics was presented to the Maori King Tuheitia and his pan-tribal council Tekau-maa-rua in Ngaruawahia yesterday.

Chair of the iwi justice panel at Waiwhetu Marae in Lower Hutt, Neville Baker, said the current system had failed Maori for decades and the systems needed to change.

“Maori have been incarcerated for 100 years and we are getting worse so why would we want to continue with the prison system,” said Baker.

It’s great to see a focus on reducing offending. I would point out that the trend is actually positive. The Herald reported last year:

A progress report on the Government’s crime prevention programme shows Maori youth offending down by 32 per cent over three years.

The Drivers of Crime programme, launched in December 2009, brings together crime prevention work of the justice and social sector.

There has also been a small decrease in the number of Maori in prison – a 3.6% reduction from March 2011 (4,483) to to March 2014 (4,320).

Still a huge amount more to be done, but the solutions are not as simple as just saying less prison. If an offender’s crimes are serious enough or repetitive enough, the protecting the community comes first.

A hardline law and order policy by NZ First would offer greater protection to homeowners, farmers and shop keepers who shoot to kill intruders during home invasions or burglaries.

Along with a 40-year mandatory non-parole sentence for premeditated murder, NZ First wants the Crimes Act amended to give certainty over the use of “reasonable force” for self-defence.

Ahead of the party’s annual convention this weekend, law and order spokesman Richard Prosser said the policy was a response to a string of incidents that had seen farmers and shopkeepers in court over their use of firearms or even hockey sticks against would-be robbers.

Mr Prosser said so-called “castle doctrine” laws in some US states, which saw Texan Joe Horn acquitted after his 2007 fatal shooting of two men who had burgled his neighbour’s home, were “so over the top that it wouldn’t be something that I think anyone in New Zealand would give consideration to”.

“But what I do think people have a desire for is the ability to actually defend themselves and their families in their own homes.”

Mr Prosser wants a regime based on that introduced in Ireland in 2011 following controversy over the 2004 shooting of an Irish traveller by a farmer.

NZ First’s proposal would allow for homeowners to use “any firearm that is lawfully available to that person” to defend themselves.

It is unclear exactly what NZ First are proposing.

If they are proposing that you can legally shoot anyone illegally on your property, then I can not support that. The penalty for tresspassing and/or burglary should not be death.

If they are proposing that when a homeowner has a genuine fear for their safety, or their families, then they can use firearms for self-defence – I can back that. But shooting someone in the back, as they are leaving, is not self-defence (for example).

“Normally I’m not a big fan of restorative justice. Often victims haven’t been told the full picture, that attending a restorative justice conference reduces the sentence.

“But I’m a big fan of offenders being held to account. And if that involves public speaking and a documentary in this case, then that’s great.”

His stance might put him out on a limb with others in his group, McVicar said.

Obviously Bolton was incredibly remorseful and the judge should be given a pat on the back for thinking outside the square, McVicar said.

Before sentencing Carmen Rogers’ husband Che, his family and Bolton had met in a day-long restorative justice conference.

Che Rogers said he did not want Bolton jailed.

Rather it was agreed that Bolton be part of an anti-drink-driving documentary and also give a speech to senior Spotswood college students with Nouveau, 15, Che and Carmen Rogers’ older daughter.

Seems a good outcome. Restorative justice and non custodial sentences are great when the offenders are truly remorseful and not repeat offenders. I’m sceptical of their value when it does involve a serious repeat offender.

A 39-year-old man has been found guilty of kidnapping and murdering a Hawkes Bay sickness beneficiary.

Steven Tiwini Rakuraku faced 11 charges, including the murder of the 50-year-old Johnny Charles Wright, who disappeared on June 21, 2011. …

A reader suggests that Rakuraku is a candidate for life without parole – a sentencing option available since 2010. He notes:

Victim was effectively imprisoned in his own home.

Victim was effectively tortured over a period of weeks, if not months, buy repeated beatings, including with a weapon of war (Taiaha). This was not a one-time, sudden loss of control murder, it was premeditated and repeated, brutal and callous in the extreme.

I understand the offender has a serious history of offending prior to this case.

The question has to be that if a crime like this doesn’t qualify for LWOP, what would qualify?

The most contentious idea involves changing the burden of proof so it lies with the perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence, not the victims. Allied to this is a review of the adversarial system that is said to place an excessive burden of proof on victims, and to lead often to drawn-out proceedings that further disadvantage victims and put many into significant debt.

The report says people with experience of the present model had indicated they would favour a more collaborative system.

The report is not totally out of step in advancing these views. A flipping of the deeply embedded precept of the burden of proof, whereby the necessity to provide proof lies with whoever lays charges, is no longer beyond the pale. Abusive parents must now prove to Child, Youth and Family that they are no longer a threat. As well, bail amendment legislation requires a person on a murder charge or repeat violence, class A drug or sex charges to persuade a judge that the community will be safe if they are released. New Zealand’s appalling family violence record — the police respond to a call relating to this every seven minutes, according to the report — convinces some that there is good reason to further override the principle.

These are about people who have already been convicted of an offence. That is very different to saying anyone charged should have to prove their innocence.

But any such impulse should be resisted. Arguably, the two steps taken by the Government are valid responses to extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear danger to members of society. Both do not involve such a sweeping inversion of the burden of proof principle as would be the case if it were applied to all alleged perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence.

The precept that a defendant has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is too fundamental to our legal system and too strong a safeguard against wrongful conviction to be so comprehensively dismissed.

Absolutely. But sadly Labour is incapable of even deciding they’re against such a thing.

Labour’s @DavidCunliffeMP says they need to consider Glenn Inquiry report before taking a position on proposal to shift burden of proof

So I’ve got an idea. If Labour is open to reversing the burden of proof on allegations, then we should start the process by alleging that they have filed corrupt false donation returns and require them to prove they are innocent!

Lately West Auckland has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Four alleged homicides in less than a month, two domestic, one from a neighbourhood dispute and the latest allegedly involving a 12 year old and a 13 year old and the robbery of a local dairy owner have put West Auckland in the media for all of the wrong reasons.

What kind of country have we become when a dairy owner is killed in his shop at 7 o’clock in the morning allegedly by a child with a knife?

“The young accused were well known to local shopkeepers in a retail centre where begging, intimidation and anti-social behaviour have unfortunately been all too common.

“The community is asking why there has not been a more visible police presence, with regular foot patrols to discourage law-breaking. There is a community constable delegated to cover Henderson but the officer is based in Massey. We’d like to see a community constable based in the town centre, with a shop front on the main street.

The right have responded predictably. Cameron Slater claimed that Twyford was politicising murder. Obviously as far as he is concerned it is better for the causes not to be debated.

This claim is deeply hypocritical. David Farrar during 2008 posted a series of posts suggesting that violent crime was worsening and implying that the fifth Labour Government was responsible.

Firstly I blogged on official crime stats, I never went blaming the Government the day after a (alleged) murder. That is sad and desperate.

As for the “suggestion” that violent crime was worsening, well here are the stats from Stats NZ:

Doesn’t that tell a dramatic story.

The Government doesn’t control all, or even most, of the factors that cause crime. But it does control policy on sentencing, parole and bail, and also funding for Police and for rehabilitation.

Presland continues:

As far as I am concerned there is a political element to what is happening out west and this is why this Government’s policies should be put under the microscope. Potential causes include the following:

Poverty. Three of the deaths occurred in one of the poorest parts of West Auckland and the alleged killer in the fourth was apparently begging. Trickle down is not working.

Policing. I have heard that the Waitakere Criminal Investigation Unit is severely understaffed, with up to a third of positions not currently filled. There are many dedicated police officers working in the area but if the Police does not have sufficient resources they will not be able to do their job properly.

Education. It is astounding that the Government can find $360 million to attempt to bribe teachers with promises of more pay but cannot increase funding for alternative education. Imagine what a difference this sum could make if applied to kids who are clearly at risk.

Working conditions. The right are already saying “what about the parents”. Sure there are bad parents around. There are also good parents working inhumane hours just to make ends meet.

I think my favourite is that National offering $360 million to pay the best teachers more, so they can share their skills with colleagues, is somehow linked to the murder in West Auckland. And this isn’t some deranged anonymous blogger – but one of the closest advisors to the Labour Leader.

Incidentially see Mr Presland wants to play this game, there were 234 homicides (and related offences) in the last three years (2011 to 2013). In 2006 to 2008 there were 291. So does that mean Labour in its third term had failed to do anythng about poverty, policing, education and working conditions? And doesn’t the 20% drop in homicides then mean that those factors have all improved?

Of and finally, as Mr Presland is talking about West Auckland, I had a look at the violent crime stats for Waitemata Police District.

In 2008 there were 3,952 violent crimes in Waitemata. In 2013 there were 3,134. That’s a huge 26% drop.

So I say bring it on, if Labour wants to start talking violent crime in West Auckland. It will be a great way to get them ever lower in the 20s in the polls.

However Mr Twyford suggests that questions should be asked about why there hasn’t been a more visible police presence in Henderson with regular foot patrols to discourage law-breaking. There is a suggestion that a more visible police presence would have prevented this crime.

I don’t think you can say that a lack of police resources contributed, on some level, to Mr Kumar’s death. I don’t think that police officers walking the streets would have stopped such a senseless crime. Whoever killed Mr Kumar had no compassion or respect for humanity, and I don’t believe that you could have prevented what happened by instructing a policeman to walk down the street from time to time.

Tragedies like the murder of Arun Kumar should not be politicised. We’ve seen politicians out in Henderson. Len Brown’s been there, the Auckland mayor. Labour MPs have paid their respects. But I think the Kumar family’s greatest support right now will come from the police, not from politicians.

I don’t want to see more police on the streets. I want to see better parenting in our homes. That’s where the issue of accountability lies. Children who are loved and nurtured don’t grow up to be killers.

David Taite still does not accept he should have been shot by police officers in an incident near the Central Hawke’s Bay township of Otane in October 2011.

Living in Waipukurau since the beginning of the year Taite, 51, is paralysed from the waist down as a result of his injuries.

So why was he shot?

Taite called out that he had a gun and was going to kill the officer. The officer, who was on the radio, got out of the patrol car and drew his Glock pistol, telling Taite he was armed and Taite should get on the ground.

Ignoring this instruction Taite moved towards the officer, who repeated the instruction to lie down. Taite ignored this and continued to advance towards the officer who then fired a single shot at Taite’s chest.

Taite fell to the ground and continued to yell abuse at the officers. He then started crawling towards the open driver’s side door of the patrol car where the keys were in the ignition and the car was running.

Concerned that Taite might try to escape using the police car, one of the officers ordered him to roll over and show his hands.

Taite then put his hand inside his trousers and replied that he had a grenade and was going to blow everyone up.

Concerned about this new threat and the safety of those around him, the officer struck Taite in the face, stunning him and Taite was then handcuffed.

The officers assessed Taite’s injuries as they waited for the ambulance to arrive.

Taite suffered a spinal injury from the gunshot and is permanently paralysed from his waist down.

What a shame we now have to pay for his care. He’s been shot once, and then claims he has a grenade. Such stupidity is lucky to be alive. The Police would have been within their rights to fire several more bullets into him.

The brother of the sole survivor of the 2001 Mt Wellington RSA massacre says suppressing the name of the man charged with Blessie Gotingco’s murder isn’t fair on the community.

Stephen Couch’s sister Susan Couch was bashed and left for dead by William Bell after he murdered William Absolum, Mary Hobson, and Wayne Johnson.

Bell was under Corrections supervision at the time and had gone into the RSA to steal $12,000. He had been released from prison after serving five years for aggravated robbery on conditions being monitored by Corrections, through the Probation Service.

Mr Couch was speaking out after learning the man accused of murdering her was known to authorities.

I understand the accused is very very well known to authorities. Not sure how much one can say, but I will say I think it is a pity the three strikes law wasn’t in place a long time ago.

Prisoner Kerryn Mitchell spends her $2.70 weekly allowance on coffee, fruit and phonecards, so she struggles to understand how she will afford to rent a television.

The Corrections Department wants to introduce the rental scheme in an effort to reduce the amount of contraband smuggled into prisons in inmates’ personal TVs – but Mitchell has brought a High Court case claiming the removal of her own set is a breach of her rights.

Ms Mitchell has also sued in the past for not having a proper mattress, after she had destroyed four in a row.

Also sued for not receiving the Dominion Post and not having her mail delivered to another prisoner.

She seems to be a life long criminal. Even back in 1994 she was suing the Police – in fact the first lawsuit under the Privacy Act. She won $500.

Not sure the full extent of Mitchell’s offending, but she has ten convictions for breaching protections orders.

The scheme removes the right of prisoners to bring their own TVs into prison, replacing them with department-issued clear-framed sets that can be rented for $2 per week.

Prisoners who earn less than $5.40 a week are charged only $1, and in special circumstances the sets can be provided free.

Sounds heartless.

I wonder if many of these lawsuits could be curtailed by a law which explicitly says that prisoners do not have a right to a television, newspaper, Internet etc.

More than 50 per cent of crime was committed by people under the influence of drugs and two-thirds of prisoners had substance abuse problems, the Corrections Service national commissioner Jeremy Lightfoot said.

Because of that, addressing alcohol and other drug abuse among offenders significantly contributed towards the department’s goal to reduce reoffending by 25 per cent in the next three years, he said.

“We are now over half way to achieving this target and re-offending has fallen by over 12 per cent against the June 2011 benchmark.

As a result, there were 2319 fewer offenders and 9276 fewer victims of crime each year.

All positive.

In 2009 nearly $2.7m was spent on drug treatment in New Zealand prisons.

By last year that had increased to $5.3m.

All prisons had recently introduced treatment programmes, he said.

“All prisoners are now screened for alcohol and drug problems when they enter prison which allows staff to make appropriate decisions on the amount of support required.

“This means that every prisoner now undergoes screening for addictions, health, mental health and education when they enter a corrections facility.”

Should have happened a long time ago.

In the 2013-14 financial year more than 3700 prisoners will have access to treatment for their addictions rising to 4700 next year.

That leapt from just 234 in 2007-08.

Labour talked the talk when it came to rehabilitation, but never walked the walk.